New York Times article speculating on Gov Kristi Noem for President in 2024

I had a note this AM that Governor Kristi Noem is on the front page of the New York Times this morning in a speculative article about the possibility of her running for President in 2024.

Predictably, there was manufactured silliness (I.e., claims that Kristi “has an increasingly awkward relationship with John Thune”). The article does give a glimpse on those in South Dakota Politics who are fans, and those who seem to actively oppose her in the SDGOP:

Russell Olson, a former South Dakota lawmaker who was elected to the Legislature alongside Ms. Noem in 2006, said Ms. Noem is “a conservative woman and can talk without regurgitating talking points, so she rises to easy consideration in my book.”

and..

“Love her or hate her, she’s the best resource South Dakota has going for it right now,” said Lee Schoenbeck, the leader of the State Senate. “She’s got such a platform.”

and..

“She says whatever she thinks she needs to say,” said Taffy Howard, a state lawmaker who has pressed Ms. Noem to disclose the details of state money she has been using for security on her frequent trips. “This was all about keeping her donors happy.”

Read the article here.

The article does come from The NY Times (as written by a CNN Analyst) so take those biases into account.

However, it leaves little doubt that Kristi is a favorite for many, and could quite possibly be a candidate for President in the future.

(For now – let’s make sure we re-elect Governor Noem in 2022!)

Official 2022 Noem Rhoden Bumper Sticker as distributed at the Codington Co LDD
Official 2022 Noem Rhoden Bumper Sticker as distributed at the Codington Co LDD

38 thoughts on “New York Times article speculating on Gov Kristi Noem for President in 2024”

        1. Couldn’t agree more…Marty is in the wrong race. We all knows he is only running for AG to run for Gov in 2026 anyway. Marty no time like the present! Run for Governor now! then I’ll send you a check.

          1. If Billie and SHS pass we will know she is popular enough in polling that they didn’t see a viable path.

            I think the only way she would lose at this point is a Mickelson/Sutton independent unity ticket without a dem in the race.

  1. Young Ms. Howard is very jealous of the attention Governor Noem gets, all while she had her hand out for favors for only a handful of her constituents. Shame, Ms. Howard, shame.

    1. Why? Except for the mask mandate call…which she was hypocritical with also…what has she gotten right? Take a look at those EOs early on.

      She fought against Const Carry and then embraced it like it was her idea. She veto’d the transgender bill this year after doing everything she could do to kill the bill last year. national Conservatives are not happy with her.

      I vote for her and fundraised for her and never again.

  2. God knows much of this term as governor seems more focused on her national profile than actually running the state.

      1. Did you just seize on a turn of phrase to randomly accuse someone of claiming prophesy? That is, by far, the WEIRDEST snark I have ever seen in this comment section. And John Dale posts here regularly.

    1. Ya didn’t see Bill Janklow or George Mickelson, Mike Rounds or Dennis Daugaard flitting around the country or appearing on FoxNews like this attention getter.

  3. I would vote for anyone over another Kristi term. She has done nothing for the state except make headlines for her personal run for pres with Corey saying “no such thing as bad publicity”. That can maybe work for Trump, but not her. Also, anyone who refers and governs as if it’s “her state” and that she speaks for everyone here, I am against. She was elected to lead, not run the state as if it is her personal ant farm and she is the dictator God.

    1. Amen to that—just ask anyone…if you are not 100% with her she says you are an enemy forever…look at the Down Syndrome abortion ban….she disinvited nearly everyone

  4. Noem “… can talk without regurgitating talking points…” What? Come on. That’s all she does.

    1. Her SDPB debate against Billee was a prime example of that. She hit on about 2 talking point phrases continuously to the point of being robotic.

  5. COMMENTS:
    1) It is good for South Dakota to have nationally recognized leaders like Thune and Noem.

    2) I nearly laughed when the author threw out the disproven canard about Sturgis being a super-spreader.

    3) I was on the inside when much was made about “animus” between Abdnor, Janklow, Pressler, & Roberts. It was grossly overstated and actually healthy as they pursued support for their agendas from the same constituency. The article implies a relationship between Thune and Noem worse than reality. But, it makes good gossip. Drey Samuelson is quite the “source” since he hardly knows either Thune and Noem.

    4) I’m still waiting for someone who is critical of Noem on the transgender sports issue to say out loud what is missing from her executive orders instead of calumnious innuendo.

    5) It is hilarious to say in one breath she is making decisions to foster a national campaign in conflict with South Dakota interests and the only issue mentioned is an issue that is supposedly (I don’t buy the assertion) hurting her with the national conservatives.

    6) Running in primaries is easy in South Dakota so I’m waiting for a single name ready to take on Thune or Noem. Otherwise, this primary talk is just idle talk. Put up or shut up.

    1. Just a question though, how many will leave that box blank for Senator Thune come election time?

  6. I would take her over Sutton every day of the week as she is not a socialist.

    I would also take her over Cuomo, Newsom, Walz, Whitmer, and on and on.

    You are not going to get perfection, and we have it a lot better than the states run by Democrats/Socialist/Marxists/Progressives.

  7. Sutton is a socialist? Marxists? Good Lord. In most of the country he’s a republican pre trump. Post trump not so sure. His Bernie flirtation was a really bad idea. Should have just stayed quite on national matters.

    1. Anony, anyone with a (D) after their name is deemed “socialist” or “Marxist” by those who can’t honestly see a path toward common ground.

  8. I’m not going to vote for her in the 2022 primary let alone a presidential primary. She was afraid to go to court and fight for fairness in women’s sports but she will go to court and sue for fireworks! She talks out of both sides of her mouth.

    1. I’m now convinced the “criticism” of Noem on the transgender sports issue is phony because, as I do above, I’ve asked at least 20 times on here the same thing with never a response:

      What about her Executive Orders is insufficient to address the issue of unfair competition for biological girls?

      It is becoming clear there is secret agenda at play and those criticizing her don’t want to admit their true motives.

      1. Her not “standing up” in support of the legislature is a completely bs criticism, but I have to ask: what did her EO accomplish for high schools that the SDHSAA’s existing rules weren’t already accomplishing?

        1. The SDHSAA had approved one biological boy to participate in a girls sport. That is not possible now.

      2. She could’ve just signed the bill Troy.

        Additionally, she basically bent over backwards to pressure from the NCAA. She’s not a principled leader, she’s been a hack from day 1. She rode Thune’s coat tails to the House, she road Trump’s the Governor’s mansion – lets not forget that she had to campaign and fundraise with Dusty Johnson in order to line up support for her floundering campaign to fend off a Democrat in South Dakota. We’ll see what she rides next to where ever she’ll end up.

        The one thing she does well is TV ads, I’ll give her that. Minus the fact that she doesn’t actually “work” on her families ranch and hasn’t for some time. All a show.

        1. As conservatives, short, concise and to the point is better than long, complex and has a lot of big government rules. Big government liberal like long bills.

          So, being a good conservative, she just issued a simple and clear EO: Biological Boys can’t play girl sports.

          Again, I ask: What does her EO’s not contain which you think necessary? Why is it so necessary to have that bill? What does it contain the is so important to you?

          Be open and honest. What is your secret agenda you can’t admit?

  9. Her executive order to the Board of Regents was a recommendation that they enact new policy as long as the NCAA doesn’t get mad. It’s not going to do anything for protecting Women’s sports at the collegiate level. As far as me I have no secret agenda. I support the bill as passed by the legislature. The Governor is the one who flip flopped and bowed to liberal interest groups. I don’t want Amazon running the state. I don’t want the NCAA running the state. I don’t want the Sioux Falls Chamber of Commerce running the state.

    1. So, Rushmore Rep, your primary objection is related to collegiate sports.

      Four comments:

      #1: If we ban it at our colleges, all of our colleges compete with teams from other states. There is nothing we can do to maintain competitive fairness of South Dakota women athletes except as Noem has done.

      #2: Just like I laugh at liberals who propose preemptive legislation to a problem which doesn’t exist, I’m laughing now. We don’t make laws to address every POTENTIAL problem. If the NCAA goes off the deep-end and moves to ruin women sports, the solution will likely not be a law by the South Dakota Legislature but organizing a new interstate sports governing body (we do not have enough D1 schools, D2 schools, and other schools to have conferences of fair competition.

      Rushmore Rep, the idea you are the solution to everything is the Big Brother mentality which is the biggest threat to freedom there is. And, you really should understand the issue better. In the real world, its not just about ideology (as Biden is finding out). You actually have have an endgame that works in the real world.

      #3: In America, everyone gets a voice and it is our elected leaders to listen and then discern the best policy. Unless I can accuse you (who infers is an elected representative) of being run by every group who has an opinion you agree with, your charge about Amazon, the NCAA, and SFChamber is flat out nuts (no wonder you don’t sign your own name). My view is 100% formed independently except to the degree certain arguments might have made sense to me. In this case, the arguments of the Chamber were not persuasive to me, I have no idea what Amazon thinks, and since the NCAA doesn’t allow biological males compete in women sports, I agree with their current policies and do not have a crystal ball to see any future changes until proposed (BTW, its kinda paranoid and weird to pretend you can read other’s minds).

      #4: And, most important, as a conservative, I do not paternalistically, preemptively, and condescendingly take action to protect adults who have not ask for protection. Our women (and men) athletes at our colleges are adults. When they voice themselves by taking a lead on a proposal, I’m inclined to get behind them. Until then, this conservative will not make government bigger and more intrusive.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.